UK has No mandate for military intervention Syria

Why voters are not surprised with the announcement of the words “Chemical Weapons” the war mongering countries start to go into overdrive. Remember the words Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) from a Labour Government now it has come to blows a Coalition Government has decided to put on their war paint already. How ironic that USA takes UK for granted. UK parliament voted and the people’s power who won the day on Thursday 22 August 2013 parliament voted against the wishes of the government and sided with the voters. Hence UK will no longer take part in the intervention in Syria as both Coalition and Labour amendment motions were defeated which has done a lot of damage to Cameron’s leadership to the world and his own party which leads the pathway clear for Theresa May to formally challenge David Cameron‘s leadership in the Conservative Party.

How intriguingly after Tony Blair stepped down as leader of Labour Party he still shouting louder to invade Syria. Many people went on 4 marches against the war in Iraq, and Afghanistan. What the coalition has not informed us all is that it is a can of worms waiting to happen. Congratulations Ed Miliband has finally come to his senses to realise that the UN inspectors will need to time to assess their finding and report back to the various committees then for it to translated into action which the British public has been saying all along which many party activist and Labour supporters have said all along

Here is what Ed Miliband said in full:

Ed Miliband has raised the stakes before Thursday’s Commons vote on military strikes against the Assad regime by announcing that Labour is to table its own amendment. Which were:

If we are to ask yet more of the most exceptional of our country’s men and women those in our forces it must be on the basis of a decision that has complete moral authority.

Here are the five steps we must take before coming to such a decision:

1) We must let the UN weapons inspectors do their work and report to the UN Security Council;

2) There must be compelling and internationally-recognised evidence that the Syrian regime was responsible for the chemical weapons attacks;

3) The UN Security Council should debate and vote on the weapons inspectors’ findings and other evidence. This is the highest forum of the world’s most important multilateral body and we must take it seriously;

4) There should be a clear legal basis in international law for taking military action to protect the Syrian people;

5) Any military action must be time limited, it must have precise and achievable objectives and it must have regard for the consequences of the future impact on the region.

“Parliament must tomorrow agree criteria for action, not write a blank cheque,” the Labour leader tweeted.

In his first tweet, he said: “Labour will table our own amendment on Syria in the Commons tomorrow.” In his second tweet he said: “Our amendment will insist the Prime Minister must return to the Commons after the UN weapons inspectors have reported.”

The intervention by Miliband, who told the prime minister late on Tuesday night that Britain should take the Syrian crisis to the UN security council, shows the significance of the call from Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary-general, for inspectors in Damascus to be given more time. Britain has praised the work of the inspectors but says it will not be bound by them.

Miliband’s move, which suggests Labour believes military action should be delayed until the inspectors have reported, means that the coalition potentially faces a tight vote when the debate ends at 10.00pm on Thursday night.

Scores of Tory MPs are raising concerns about the planned military action. They could abstain, or vote against, the government motion. They are unlikely to vote with Labour but could abstain on the Labour amendment. But, crucially, the Labour moves suggest that Miliband will instruct MPs to vote against the government motion. This presents the prime minister with a formidable challenge.

Here is the full context of the motion that went to Parliament on Thursday 29 August 2013:

“This House:

“Deplores the use of chemical weapons in Syria on 21 August 2013 by the Assad regime, which caused hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries of Syrian civilians;

“Recalls the importance of upholding the worldwide prohibition on the use of chemical weapons under international law;

“Agrees that a strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria’s chemical weapons;

“Notes that the use of chemical weapons is a war crime under customary law and a crime against humanity – and that the principle of humanitarian intervention provides a sound legal basis for taking action;

“Notes the wide international support for such a response, including the statement from the Arab League on 27 August which calls on the international community, represented in the United Nations Security Council, to ‘overcome internal disagreements and take action against those who committed this crime, for which the Syrian regime is responsible’;

“Believes, in spite of the difficulties at the United Nations, that a United Nations process must be followed as far as possible to ensure the maximum legitimacy for any such action;

“Therefore welcomes the work of the United Nations investigating team currently in Damascus. Whilst noting that the team’s mandate is to confirm whether chemical weapons were used and not to apportion blame, agrees that the United Nations Secretary General should ensure a briefing to the United Nations Security Council immediately upon the completion of the team’s initial mission;

“Believes that the United Nations Security Council must have the opportunity immediately to consider that briefing and that every effort should be made to secure a Security Council Resolution backing military action before any such action is taken. Before any direct British involvement in such action a further vote of the House of Commons will take place.

“Notes that this motion relates solely to efforts to alleviate humanitarian suffering by deterring use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any action in Syria with wider objectives.”

Intriguing US President Barack Obama has said he has not yet decided on a plan for retaliatory action against Syria.

But he said he had concluded Syrian government forces were behind a recent chemical weapons attack near Damascus.

Speaking on US television, Mr Obama said the use of chemical weapons affected US national interests and that sending a “shot across the bows” could have a positive impact on Syria’s war.

His comments follow a day of behind-the-scenes wrangling at the UN.

The UK had been pushing for permanent members of the UN Security Council to adopt a resolution which would have authorised measures to protect civilians in Syria.

Damascus seems quieter than on trips I made here earlier this year, though there’s still plenty of traffic in the centre. Its people are awaiting decisions that are being taken elsewhere.

Army roadblocks stop traffic every few miles down the highway in from the Lebanese border, as they have since the war started.

News agencies, quoting residents and some opponents of the Assad regime, have reported that some heavy weaponry has been moved out of bases and staff have partially vacated some headquarters.

It is logical for the Syrian army to have some sort of plan to protect itself from any attack, especially since the progress toward launching a military strike has been discussed so openly by Western powers.

The countries surrounding Syria are bracing themselves for a new crisis. In Beirut, the man who helped me with my bags said the West would do whatever it wanted.

But Syrian ally Russia refused to agree to the resolution and the meeting produced no end to the diplomatic stalemate which has long characterised the UN position on Syria.

The US State Department criticised “Russian intransigence” and said it could not allow diplomatic paralysis to serve as a shield for the Syrian leadership.

Russia is sending an anti-submarine ship and a missile cruiser to the eastern Mediterranean.

The ships are being sent to strengthen the navy’s presence in the area because of the “well-known situation” there, the Russian news agency Interfax has said.

But another news agency, Novosti, quotes a senior naval command spokesman as saying that this is just a planned rotation, unconnected with Syria.

Critics have questioned what purpose a limited strike on Syria could serve, but Mr Obama told the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) it would send the government of Bashar al-Assad “a pretty strong signal that it better not [use chemical weapons] again”.

The US has yet to produce the intelligence it says shows Mr Assad’s government is guilty of using chemical weapons, and UN weapons inspectors are still investigating inside Syria.

The team has just begun a third day of on-site investigations, and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has appealed for it to be “given time to do its job”. He said the inspectors would finish their investigations and be out of the area by Saturday morning.

Syria denies using chemical weapons and blames opposition fighters for the attack near Damascus on 21 August, which reportedly killed hundreds of people.

It accused the West of “inventing” excuses to launch a strike.

In a sign of growing fears about an impending attack among Syrians, the Associated Press quoted Lebanese officials as saying at least 6,000 Syrians crossed into Lebanon in a 24-hour period through the main Masnaa crossing – compared to a normal daily tally of between 500 and 1,000 refugees.

“Isn’t it enough, all the violence and fighting that we already have in the country, now America wants to bomb us, too?” one 45-year-old woman, entering Lebanon with her five children, told AP.

In Damascus senior military commanders are reportedly staying away from buildings thought likely to be targeted. You “could hear a pin drop” at one of them, a local resident said.

President Obama told PBS that the US had “not yet made a decision, but the international norm against the use of chemical weapons needs to be kept in place, and hardly anyone disputes that chemical weapons were used in a large scale in Syria against civilian populations”.

“We’ve looked at all the evidence, and we don’t believe the opposition possessed chemical weapons of that sort,” he said.

He added he had concluded that the Syrian government carried out the chemical weapons attack.

“There need to be international consequences, so we are consulting with our allies,” he said.

There was “a prospect that chemical weapons could be directed at us – and we want to make sure that doesn’t happen”.

Mr Obama looked cautious and spoke in a measured way, and he was clearly concerned about getting Congress on board as well as the American public.

Opinion polls until now have shown very little interest among the US public in getting involved in the Syrian conflict.

In an open letter to the president, US House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner demanded he explain “the intended effect of military strikes”, and how he would prevent the intervention escalating, if he wanted to win public and congressional backing for action.

More than 110 members of Congress have signed a letter formally requesting that Mr Obama seek congressional approval for any action in Syria.

US officials are expected to give senior members of Congress a classified briefing on the evidence that the Syrian government carried out the alleged chemical attack on Thursday.

Models for possible intervention

Iraq 1991: US-led global military coalition, anchored in international law; explicit mandate from UN Security Council to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait

Balkans 1990s: US arms supplied to anti-Serb resistance in Croatia and Bosnia in defiance of UN-mandated embargo; later US-led air campaign against Serb paramilitaries. In 1999, US jets provided bulk of 38,000 Nato sorties against Serbia to prevent massacres in Kosovo – legally controversial with UN Security Council resolutions linked to “enforcement measures”

Somalia 1992-93: UN Security Council authorised creation of international force with aim of facilitating humanitarian supplies as Somali state failed. Gradual US military involvement without clear objective culminated in Black Hawk Down disaster in 1993. US troops pulled out

Libya 2011: France and UK sought UN Security Council authorisation for humanitarian operation in Benghazi in 2011. Russia and China abstained but did not veto resolution. Air offensive continued until fall of Gaddafi

The US has said it will not take action alone – but one of its primary allies, the UK, has agreed to wait until UN inspectors report back before taking a parliamentary vote on potential action.

Russia rejected a UK push to try to agree a resolution on Syria among permanent UN Security Council members on Wednesday, with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov saying the UN could not consider any draft resolution or proposed action in Syria before the UN weapons inspectors reported back.

The use of force without a sanction of the UN Security Council would be a “crude violation” of international law and “lead to the long-term destabilisation of the situation in the country and the region”, Mr Lavrov has said.

The UK, US and France are continuing their discussions following the meeting of the five permanent members.

For the UK, there needs to be a UN “moment” – despite the fact that UN action will likely again be blocked by Russia or China.

But even without UN backing the US and its allies have been clear that they see the military option still open to them, our correspondent says.

“This is the first use of chemical warfare in the 21st Century,” said UK Foreign Secretary William Hague. “It has to be unacceptable… or we will confront even bigger war crimes in the future.”

More than 100,000 people are estimated to have died since the conflict erupted in Syria in March 2011, and the conflict has produced at least 1.7 million refugees.